Friday, December 20, 2013

The Christian Inmates Myth

From the December 2010 E-Block.

***

A favorite fundamentalist atheist myth over the
years has been that prison inmates are overwhelmingly Christian, and
that this in some way proves that Christianity is bad for morals. As a
former prison employee myself, and having written an article for the Christian Research Journal
on the subject of inmates and spirituality (see link below), I’d like
to collate some of my findings and observations on this claim, as well
as comment on a response that has been issued by a group called Errant
Skeptics.

The atheist case builds on statistics reputedly obtained on March
5, 1997. The statistics indicate that some 83% of inmates with a known
religious affiliation profess for some faith in the Judeo-Christian
tradition.

There are a few problems, initially, with what relevance this data has.

First, it represents a very small sample from a very limited
population – in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. As I indicate in the CRJ
article, each state collects its own statistics. Some states have not
done surveys on inmate religious preferences in a long time. Some have
mixed categories. However, without the much larger state populations, to
say nothing of county jail populations, this survey doesn’t do much to
capture a decent picture of inmate religious preferences.

However, it must be added that in those states that did have
useful data, “Christian” designations ranged from 60 to 90 percent of
inmates.

Second, a very large number of inmates are listed as having
“unknown” preference or no answer. In fact, the number is so large that
if it had been a group itself, it would have ranked third (18,381) after
Catholic (29,267) and Protestant (26,162), and before Muslim at a
distant fourth (5,435). Such a large group of unknowns by itself means
that it is illicit to draw any conclusions from this study about
connections between religion and incarceration.

Third, the study only reports then-present inmate
religious preferences and does not account for conversions while behind
bars. There are a number of evangelistic groups that do prison ministry
(Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship, for example) and for a connection
between incarceration and criminality to hold, it must reflect
preferences prior to incarceration.

Fourth, and of most relevance to my experiences: The atheist
argument assumes that there is no motive for an inmate to profess a
religious preference other than being a practicing adherent of a
religion. But there are many other reasons why an inmate may choose a
certain religious preference (some of which also apply in the outside
world):

The may have been raised in a certain environment and, should they
die in prison, wish to be buried according to their family’s religious
traditions.

They may be eligible for special visits on religious holidays if they express a preference.

They may be able to attend religious services which provide a
break in a rigorous and demanding schedule (to say nothing of the fact
that religious facilities in prisons have air conditioning, whereas
dormitories usually do not).

They may join a religious group as a way of belonging to a
social network that will support them in prison (eg, defense from other
inmates).

They may think that expressing a religious preference will earn
them rewards from staff, or make staff less suspicious of them and less
likely to search their belongings.

When it comes time for parole or “good behavior”, being a member of a religious group can be perceived as a point in favor.

The sum of it is that it is exceptionally naïve to take a survey of religious preference of inmates as simply a survey of religious allegiances of inmates. Inmates are far from an objective and disinterested group when it comes to profession of anything that might serve their own interests.

Would there be any way to collect serious data on this subject,
that might prove (or disprove) the atheist claim? Here is what would
need to be done:

Redo the study with a much larger sample.

Get rid of the “unknown” and “no answer” category – if
possible. Seeing as how this is a population which considers “mind your
own ***** business” a civil answer, that might not be possible!

Query religious affiliation prior to incarceration.

Establish affiliation according to practice. This admittedly
cannot be done easily. Errant Skeptics wisely notes an important
distinction between merely expressing a preference, and actual
practice. Preference does not measure “the standard sociological
measures of religiosity, such as regular prayer, scripture study, and
attendance at worship services.” It measures, rather, an expression of a
default. It may simply mean, “this is the church my parents or
grandparents went to.” As Errant Skeptics puts it:
Religious proponents may be less pleased at the studies of
religious behavior that indicate that even nominal measures of religious
behavior lag far behind religious identification. As mentioned earlier,
simply stating a "religious preference" in answer to a survey question
may mean nothing other than that the respondent remembers the religious
preference of a parent or grandparent. A respondent answering
"Presbyterian" to a question may attend church every week, in addition
to helping at a church-sponsored literacy program for 3 hours every
Wednesday, praying daily, having a particularly forgiving heart, and
studying the Bible almost daily. Or they may have never been inside any
church, except to attend weddings and funerals, since they were ten,
when their mom dropped them off at a Sunday children's program almost
every week for 8 months straight, saying "We're Presbyterians. I want
you to learn what that means." The "self-identified" Presbyterian may
fit into either of these categories. One of these categories is not
expected by sociologists to have any affect whatsoever on behavior.

Measures of religiosity need to be tested for this survey to have any
validity. But the testing will have to be rigorous because of the
nature of the population being tested. Tests like "who goes to services"
are not absolute when it comes to inmates (and few do attend services,
unless there is free food, or hot weather, or...). For this reason,
atheist claimants have an extra burden in terms of why such inmates
should be counted on the "true believer" side, given that assembling
together is stated as required by the package, so that a “faker” will
readily attend services. So likewise, an inmate professing to be part of
a Native American faith may ask for a plot of "sacred ground" inside
the prison. If they never do, the atheist is the one that needs to
explain why they count as genuine -- it is not our place to defend why
they are not.

The Errant Skeptics report points to a 1995 study of jail
population which indicates that “while 72% affirmed affiliation with
religious institutions…only 54% of Federal and State Prisoners actually
consider themselves religious, and 33% can be confirmed to be practicing
their religion. This is demonstrated by attendance records at religious
services, which averaged anywhere between 30% and 40%, depending upon
the time of year and the institution in question (and who was
preaching).” On the surface, this survey did a better job of separating
preferences from practice, and also trying to divide out fakers from
actual practitioners (that is, “consider themselves religious” vs.
“confirmed to be practicing”) – and it also does little to support the
fundamentalist atheist connection between religion and criminality.

I will now switch over to a more personal view, speaking as one
who has worked in prisons for many years. Many inmates claim a religious
preference. In reality, most inmates are actually deists at best and
atheists at worst, who use religious profession in a cynical way to get
themselves some sort of special treatment, if they use it at all. Most
that I met would say they believed in God for no other reason than that
they were taught to; if you pressed them for more, you might end up
creating a convert to atheism! A few might say they believe in God for
some reason that would amount to a form of the argument from design. But
in strictly functional terms, all of these would be either deists (who
do not think of God as being in any sense relevant to how they live) or
atheists (who act as though God does not exist at all).

However, it would be incautious to use this to make a connection
between irreligiousness and criminality. I would rather say that the
fundamental “first cause” for both is the same root: Indifference to
anything that does not serve the interests of self. People do not
usually get to prison because they care about others. Nor do the selfish
tend to be interested in religion (which usually demands commitment of
the self), though it is interesting that Scientology (a self-centered
religion if there ever was one!) thinks of prisons as primary recruiting
grounds.

In sum: The Christian inmate myth is bogus.

Here is my article for CRJ on religion in prisons.
Here is the report by Errant Skeptics.